The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

People who say "homosexuality is genetically related" are delusional

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 78928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




People who believe that homosexuality is genetically driven are delusional. My opponent must argue that people who believe that notion are not delusional.

Here are the definitions:

Homosexuality = sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex

Genetically = of, relating to, or involving genetics

Delusional = deceiving

Round one will be acceptance, round 2 will be composed of our arguments supporting our position, and round 3 will be reserved for rebuttals.

Good luck to my opponent.


I agree to the current terms of debate, functioning under the assumption that, as you stated, I must provide at the very least one conclusive biological link between homosexuality and biology.
Debate Round No. 1


People who believe homosexuality is genetically related ARE delusional

Just think for a minute, it is illogical for a gay gene to exist simply because it would be hindering reproduction, thus, eradication of society. This phenomenon contradicts the concept of natural selection (the ability to reproduce), which is one of the many underlying components of biology.

If a gay gene existed, why isn"t there any emphasis on searching for a "straight/heterosexual gene"? Just because gays are a minority, the "I was born gay" is used as a scapegoat to prevent humiliation.

If a gay gene did exist, then how would you explain bisexuality?

If a gay gene existed, then science would be able to provide a cure for it. But there aren"t any because it doesn"t exist.

If a gay gene existed, then how do you explain twins who carry the same DNA turn out to have inverse sexualities?

According to the article "Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic",
Dr. Whitehead asserts:

"The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."
The study negated the idea for genetics being a driving force for sexuality.

More evidence that proves gay is biologically unrelated:
According to the article "Is there such a thing as a gay animal?" Animals that are "deprived of heterosexual contact", fertilizes stress and in effect start exhibiting homosexual behavior. An experiment was conducted where 2 male monkeys were placed in a cage for 19 months.
When the male monkey is placed in a cage with a female, they would both "exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior."

The following statement comes from the scientist LeVay:
"It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain".

A person who is born with an illness (diabetes, down syndrome, autism, cystic fibrosis) have no possibility of being cured. It IS on the other hand, possible for a person to change his/her sexual orientation.

All things considered, a gay gene does not exist. People who say that they were "born gay" are completely out of their mind. EVEN WITH THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE REJECTING THE NOTION OF GENETICALLY RELATED SEXUALITY, people continue to believe an idea that has been proved to be false, thus, they are delusional.


I would first off like to make it clear as to what I, representing con, must do to win this debate. Pro is positing that there is no correlation between genetic makeup and homosexual tendencies. As such, I, con, must provide at the very least ONE unrefuted example of this sort of link. In order for pro to win however, they must convincingly refute every single correlation I demonstrate. I would further like to note that I am NOT suggesting that genetics is the only cause for homosexuality. It is one of many factors that cause an individual's sexual tendencies to form. This being said, I will now make my case for a tangible, provable link between genetics and homosexuality. Thank you.

I would like to reiterate the fact that I am not suggesting that homosexuality's sole cause is an individual's genetic makeup, rather it is a combination of both social and biological factors that lead to the existence of this phenomenon.

1) Chromosome Linkage Studies
Although I could delve into great detail about the many studies that have been done on chromosome linkage, I will for simplicities sake focus primarily on a study performed by The American Society of Human Genetics in 2012. 409 independent pairs of gay brothers were analyzed with over 400000 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. The data demonstrated significant similarities in the distil region xq28 alleles. Significant linkage was also found in the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8, overlapping with the works genetics Hamer and Hu, who had each previously conducted a similar experiment. They concluded, "our findings, taken in context with previous work, suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation." This study, along with several others, provide a clear genetic correlation between xq28 and homosexuality.

2) Sexual Differentiation in Other Species
To suggest that homosexuality is a strictly human-quality is as you incorrectly put it, "delusional". With that mind, I present the following:
-The sexual differentiation of the fruit fly brain and behavior has been completely mapped out, providing a clear model for biological sexuality.
- In the Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology, the sexual preference of female mice was altered by REMOVING A SINGLE GENE (FumC). These female mice exhibited masculine sexual behavior and attraction to other female mice. This quite clearly alone demonstrated a genetic link between homosexuality and genetics.
- Homosexual behavior and attraction has been observed in the wild in over 1500 species. Animals from primates to mallard ducks to hook worms have done the same as humans. So unless you are suggesting these animals are actively deciding to be gay, then you must concede a genetic link here.

3) Epigenetics Studies
An important link has been noted between the genetic makeup of a mother and homosexuality. Bockland et al (2005) reported that mothers with extreme skewing of chromosome x deactivation had 10-20% more gay sons, a number far passed statistically significant.

As I close I would like to again remind the audience of the sheer weight of the evidence I have provided. Pro is suggesting that there is NO genetic correlation, so all I must prove is that some link or causal connection exists. Therefore the burden lies on pro to fully refute each piece of evidence I have provided, lest they lose the debate. With this in mind I urge you to vote con.

Chromosome linkage studies: "Genome-wide linkage scan of male sexual orientation. A. R. Sanders, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, S. Guo, G. W. Beecham, E. R. Martin, J.M. Bailey8, Abstract 1957T"

Fruit fly sexuality mapping: ";

Homosexuality in female mice: ";

Homosexuality in other animals: ";

Epigenetics study: "Bocklandt S, Horvath S, Vilain E, Hamer DH (February 2006). "Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men""
Debate Round No. 2


en1gma forfeited this round.


It would appear that en1gma failed to refute any of my claims, or post anything for that matter. I think that would mean that I have won. However, still having 7,840 characters remaining, I will refute the arguments he made in his previous post as follows:

1) It is illogical for a gay gene to exist:
This isn't true. That's sort of like saying, Down syndrome must not be genetic, because a deformity which harmed society wouldn't exist because of natural selection. This of course is ridiculous. Not all genes help society. If they did, then everyone individual would BE perfect.

2) Explain bisexuality:
Very well. Bisexuality could be the byproduct of certain genes. That simple. Just like homosexuality

3) Why is there no cure:
Not every genetic issue has a cure. This should be obvious. Not to mention the fact that many people do not feel that it's a bad thing to be homosexual. Also, it's a genetic issue. You can't change someone's genetic makeup.

4) Explain twins with different sexualities:
The simple answer is as follows, it's a mixture of social and biological factors that determine an individual's homosexualty.

5) Homosexual animals under stress:
Yes, animals under stress exhibit homosexual behavior. But they also exhibit this same behavior in their natural environment, as I discussed earlier.

So, your points have been refuted. My evidence for a correlation between homosexuality and genetic makeup remains unrefined. I think it's safe to say that the audience must vote con, in favor of the overwhelming evidence I supplied. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
Midnight1131, smallpox isn't a genetic malady. Homosexuality is. I suppose it might be possible, but then a gain we haven't managed to cure other genetic malformations. It's sort of like saying, "I will cure Down syndrome". You can't change a persons genetic makeup
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
If a gay gene existed, then science would be able to provide a cure for it. But there aren"t any because it doesn"t exist.

So I guess small pox didn't exist before 1798 because there wasn't any cure/treatment for it before.
Posted by en1gma 2 years ago
ThalesofMilesia, I have already provided the guidlines for this debate;

Round 1 for acceptance

Round 2 for arguments

Round 3 for rebuttals

Good luck
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
en1gma: am I allowed to provide refutations to the claims you made? Or am I to present entirely new evidence?
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
Fudge packing leads to $hit on your dick. And that ain't no illusion.
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
I realized his definition of delusional wasn' well formed. I think I'll let that slide, and act as if he simply said "are wrong".
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
you can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
delusional does not = deceiving
Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief. Non-bizarre delusions are considered to be plausible; that is, there is a possibility that what the person believes to be true could actually occur a small proportion of the time. Conversely, bizarre delusions focus on matters that would be impossible in reality.

Read more:
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
Yes I know
Posted by en1gma 2 years ago
Just to ascertain that we are on the same page. Con must be able to prove that there is a correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
Posted by en1gma 2 years ago
Go ahead and accept the challenge so I can begin with my argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF